That's fine, so do I, but then you go on and question the woman's character. *shrug*

It's misogynistic, sorry for the typo.

There is plenty of reason to question her character. She claims this has been happening for some time and has just dealt with it.

Because some women are afraid to leave. They have deluded themselves with thoughts they can change their men, or that they somehow think they deserve it. Or they are afraid no other man will love them. Yes, they think their men love them.

To say she just dealt with is not understanding the situation. Some women won't leave even if they are punching bags. We may think them fools (I certainly don't understand it), but blanket statements don't apply.

I really found the Avs' statements regarding the situation disturbing, with Roy and others talking about how they are "standing by Varly", etc. I understand you don't throw him under the bus just yet, but a no comment would be more appropriate.

shafnutz05 wrote:I really found the Avs' statements regarding the situation disturbing, with Roy and others talking about how they are "standing by Varly", etc. I understand you don't throw him under the bus just yet, but a no comment would be more appropriate.

Maybe they know the whole story between whats going on and just not what was released in the papers.

That's fine, so do I, but then you go on and question the woman's character. *shrug*

It's misogynistic, sorry for the typo.

I admit to actually placing doubt on the woman's story and that is because of the history that I commented on before. 5 for 5 were bs. I am looking forward to the verdict on this one. If he is guilty string him up by his yarbols in the middle of Denver. But I don't think anything will come of it. Accusation is front page with pictures and 20 minute interviews. Outcome will be a page 7 footnote.

I hate to be "that guy", but what this will ultimately come down to, whether he is guilty or not, is that the woman will drop the charges. She will do that because she will realize that should she continue, all that money and fame will most likely be removed from her life. What might help her decision is a nice hefty "payoff" from the other side.

Do I agree with it, absolutely not. Women need to stand up for themselves when they happen to get mixed up with an ass of a man and learn to move on. Unfortunately, too many of them are able to find a way to look past that for the "good" that that man brings to their lives.

It isn't always about standing up for yourself and finding good in the abuser. Were this to go to trial, this woman would be put on the stand and tried by the public eye. We're talking about the intimate details of her life in full public view. And not just what happened that night--we're talking about her entire sexual history, previous partners, stories that may or may not be true, disgusting lies meant to make her look bad. It's a courtroom, not a truth palace. A lawyer will do everything he can to break down the witness' credibility, and that entails dredging up dirt (again, true or false) in order to incite a negative response (tears, humiliation, etc.).

You're also asking the witness to relive a harrowing experience, to tell a bunch of strangers about that time you may have been assaulted by the one person you trusted the most. It's all well and good to tell a person to stand up for themselves, but not everyone wants to sit in the same room as someone who beat the crap out of them and then get the told that you're lying, that you caused this, that it's all a story and you should be happy to have what you have. Hell, the person that did this to you is the victim and you should be sorry for all of the pain that you've caused him/her.

Hopefully the truth comes out and the guilty party is punished accordingly, and the innocent individual gets to move on with his or her life without the stigma of public derision.

shafnutz05 wrote:I really found the Avs' statements regarding the situation disturbing, with Roy and others talking about how they are "standing by Varly", etc. I understand you don't throw him under the bus just yet, but a no comment would be more appropriate.

Maybe they know the whole story between whats going on and just not what was released in the papers.

They don't know anything except his side of the story. They should have just said "no comment" and left it at that.

shafnutz05 wrote:I really found the Avs' statements regarding the situation disturbing, with Roy and others talking about how they are "standing by Varly", etc. I understand you don't throw him under the bus just yet, but a no comment would be more appropriate.

Maybe they know the whole story between whats going on and just not what was released in the papers.

They don't know anything except his side of the story. They should have just said "no comment" and left it at that.

Maybe they know the whole story between whats going on and just not what was released in the papers.

a man's sexual history is stuff legends are made of(usually his own) ; a woman's is to be labeled whore, slut, etc, etc... Nobody has the right to commit violence against another despite being intimate.

penny lane wrote:a man's sexual history is stuff legends are made of(usually his own) ; a woman's is to be labeled whore, slut, etc, etc... Nobody has the right to commit violence against another despite being intimate.

Who has been calling her those names? If anything, most people have vilified Varlamov moreso than the alleged victim.

Penny: was that in response to what I said? If so, I completely agree. When it comes to the criminal justice system, sadly, it is only about what can be proved without the threat of doubt. Make the witness seem less credible and you can make the truth matter less.

This is getting rather NHR, but the documentaries The Central Park Five and The Thin Blue Line are fascinating documentaries about courts gone awry (or at least gone to a place terrifyingly human). It's not just the truth of what happened in a given case--it's about a prosecutor's win record, a judge's approaching chair election, a police station's percentage of unsolved cases--any number of things.

What is the risk for a person when they make false accusations? Perjury? When have you ever known anyone convicted of perjury?

Who knows who's to blame in this case? I can only say that being falsely accused is a terrifying experience. To be arrested, booked, confined, dragged in front of a judge for arraignment. To hire an attorney to be brought to court repeatedly, to have a jury impaneled. To have a prosecuting attorney make false claims, a plaintiff lie on the stand, to have a jury deliberate. It's scary.

When you're acquitted. When the judge dismisses te case "with predjudice", it doesn't change the perception of guilt among the uninformed. And your accuser generally loses nothing. Has no risk of any consequences for their actions. Because if you were to even show signs of being frustrated, or angry, it would only validate their claims.

No, the system is flawed. It's not fair to the falsely accused, and it's not fair to the true victims of abuse who now have a higher bar to clear.